The King v. Lukens

Last updated June 29, 2022

The King v. Lukens, 1 U.S. (1 Dall.) 5 (Pa. 1762) is a decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued when Pennsylvania was still a British colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports.

Colonial and early State Court cases in the United States Reports

None of the decisions appearing in the first volume and most of the second volume of the United States Reports are actually decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Instead, they are decisions from various Pennsylvania courts, dating from the colonial period and the first decade after Independence. Alexander Dallas, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania lawyer and journalist, had been in the business of reporting these cases for newspapers and periodicals. He subsequently began compiling his case reports in a bound volume, which he called "Reports of cases ruled and adjudged in the courts of Pennsylvania, before and since the Revolution".^[1] This would come to be known as the first volume of "Dallas Reports".

When the United States Supreme Court, along with the rest of the new Federal Government, moved in 1791 to the nation's temporary capital in Philadelphia, Dallas was appointed the Supreme Court's first unofficial and unpaid Supreme Court Reporter. (Court reporters in that age received no salary, but were expected to profit from the publication and sale of their compiled decisions.) Dallas continued to collect and publish Pennsylvania decisions in a second volume of his Reports, and when the Supreme Court began hearing cases, he added those cases to his reports, starting towards the end of the second volume, "2 Dallas Reports". Dallas would go on to publish a total of 4 volumes of decisions during his tenure as Reporter.

In 1874, the U.S. government created the United States Reports, and numbered the volumes previously published privately as part of that series, starting from the first volume of Dallas Reports. The four volumes Dallas published were retitled volumes 1 - 4 of United States Reports.^[2] As a result, the complete citation to The King v. Lukens is 1 U.S. (1 Dall.) 5 (Pa. 1760).

The decision

According to Dallas's annotations, John Lukens had been indicted by a grand jury for nuisance. A statute enacted in 1705 and in force when this indictment was issued, required that any indictment be endorsed by the prosecutor.

However, grand juries in that age had far more power and acted far more independently than they generally do today. Any person, not merely the prosecutor, could bring a criminal complaint to a grand jury for its consideration, and the grand jury could conduct its own investigation into alleged criminal behavior before handing down an indictment. Thus, it was not uncommon for a grand jury to proceed to indictment without any involvement by a prosecutor whatsoever. The indictment against Lukens appears to have been just such a case. One note suggests that a constable may have presented a complaint or case to the grand jury, for there is mention of a constable's return after the indictment was issued by the grand jury.

The question before the court was whether the prosecution against Lukens could proceed without the endorsement of the prosecutor. Lukens' attorney, a Mr. Dickerson, argued that the statute required the naming or endorsement of a prosecutor before Lukens should have to plead to the charge, the first stage of a criminal prosecution. Mr. Chew, the Attorney General, argued that the statute only intended that a prosecutor be named where there was a prosecutor on the case. Otherwise, Chew argued, a prosecutor need not be so endorsed. Dickerson's position, he noted, would result in many criminals escaping justice, as many cases were brought by grand juries and justices of the peace without the participation of a prosecutor.

The court agreed with Chew, ruled that a prosecutor need be named only when and where a prosecutor is involved, and directed Lukens to answer the plea.

Little else is known about the case against Lukens.

Precedential effect

Over a century and a half after The King v. Lukens was decided, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in the case of U.S. v. Wetmore, 218 F. 227 (W.D. Pa. 1914) would cite Lukens as precedent for the proposition that no endorsement of a prosecutor was necessary where no person was actively carrying on the prosecution. In that case, indictments were brought by a grand jury investigating alleged fraud against the United States by contractors provided substandard materials for the Panama Canal project. Once again, a grand jury, rather than a prosecutor (in this case the United States Attorney), initiated criminal proceedings, and once again, the indictment was without a prosecutor's endorsement. And again, a court held that if there is no prosecutor, the indictment need not be endorsed by one.

Related Research Articles

A grand jury is a jury—a group of citizens—empowered by law to conduct legal proceedings, investigate potential criminal conduct, and determine whether criminal charges should be brought. A grand jury may subpoena physical evidence or a person to testify. A grand jury is separate from the courts, which do not preside over its functioning.

An indictment is a criminal accusation that a person has committed a crime. In jurisdictions that use the concept of felonies, the most serious criminal offence is a felony; jurisdictions that do not use the felonies concept often use that of an indictable offence, an offence that requires an indictment.

Within some criminal justice systems, a preliminary hearing, preliminary examination, preliminary inquiry, evidentiary hearing or probable cause hearing is a proceeding, after a criminal complaint has been filed by the prosecutor, to determine whether there is enough evidence to require a trial. At such a hearing, the defendant may be assisted by a lawyer.

<i>United States Reports</i> United States Supreme Court decisions

The United States Reports are the official record of the Supreme Court of the United States. They include rulings, orders, case tables, in alphabetical order both by the name of the petitioner and by the name of the respondent, and other proceedings. United States Reports, once printed and bound, are the final version of court opinions and cannot be changed. Opinions of the court in each case are prepended with a headnote prepared by the Reporter of Decisions, and any concurring or dissenting opinions are published sequentially. The Court's Publication Office oversees the binding and publication of the volumes of United States Reports, although the actual printing, binding, and publication are performed by private firms under contract with the United States Government Publishing Office.

This is a list of cases reported in volume 1 of United States Reports, decided by various Pennsylvania courts from 1754 to 1789.

Lessee of Hyam v. Edwards, is the title of two separate decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued when Pennsylvania was still a British colony. The first decision is found at 1 U.S. 1 and is the first decision that appears in the first volume of United States Reports. The second decision is found at 1 U.S. 2.

Lessee of Weston v Stammers, 1 U.S. 2 and Lessee of Lewis v. Stammers, 1 U.S. 2 are decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued when Pennsylvania was still a British colony. They are among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports.

Lessee of Ashton v. Ashton, 1 U.S. 4 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued when Pennsylvania was still a British colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports.

Hewes v. M'Dowell, 1 U.S. 5 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued when Pennsylvania was still a British colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports.

Lessee of Fothergill v. Fothergill, 1 U.S. 6 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued when Pennsylvania was still a British colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports.

Nixon v. Long, 1 U.S. 6 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued when Pennsylvania was still a British colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports.

Wallace v. Child, 1 U.S. 7 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued when Pennsylvania was still a British colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports.

Price v. Watkins, 1 U.S. 8 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued when Pennsylvania was still a British colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports.

The King v. Haas, 1 U.S. 9 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued when Pennsylvania was still a British colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports, and is among the earliest appellate court reports in North America. It is also one of the first reported appellate cases to apply the writ of habeas corpus, then an established principle of English law, in the English colonies that later became the first thirteen states of the United States of America.

The King v. Rapp, 1 U.S. 9 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued when Pennsylvania was still a British colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports, and is among the earliest reported appellate court decisions in North America.

Lessee of Albertson v. Robeson, 1 U.S. 9 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued when Pennsylvania was still a British colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports.

Lessee of Richardson v. Campbell, 1 U.S. 10 (1764) is a decision of a Pennsylvania provincial court, issued when Pennsylvania was still an English colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports, and is among the earliest surviving reports of judicial proceedings in North America. It is also one of the first applications of the Statute of Frauds, then an established principle of English law, in the English colonies that later became the first thirteen states of the United States of America.

Grand juries in the United States are groups of citizens empowered by United States federal or state law to conduct legal proceedings, chiefly investigating potential criminal conduct and determining whether criminal charges should be brought. The grand jury originated under the law of England and spread through colonization to other jurisdictions as part of the common law. Today, however, the United States is one of only two jurisdictions, along with Liberia, that continues to use the grand jury to screen criminal indictments.

Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the Speedy Trial Clause of the United States Constitution in state court proceedings. The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that in criminal prosecutions "...the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial" In this case, a defendant was tried for trespassing and the initial jury could not reach a verdict. The prosecutor neither dismissed nor reinstated the case but used an unusual procedure to leave it open, potentially indefinitely. Klopfer argued that this denied him his right to a speedy trial. In deciding in his favor, the Supreme Court incorporated the speedy trial protections of the Sixth Amendment against the states.

References

↑ Cohen, Morris and O'Connor, Sharon H. A Guide to the Early Reports of the Supreme Court of the United States, (Fred B. Rothman & Co, Littleton Colorado, 1995
↑ Hall, Kermit, ed. Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (Oxford 1992), p 215, 727

Additional references

Hall, Kermit, ed. Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (Oxford 1992),
Goebel, Jr., Julius, The Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court of the United States Volume 1: Antecedents and Beginnings to 1801 (Macmillan, 1971)
Walters, jr., Raymond Alexander Dallas: Lawyer -- Politician -- Financier, 1759 - 1817 (Da Capo Press, 1969)
Free access text of decision